Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 261 posts

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#221

Post by AngryData »

gepi79 wrote: post #201
sametmax wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, it's a finite resource and we consume it more and more. Obligatory link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=list_other&list=SP6A1FD1...

IMO Thorium reactors are too late. In some decades, there will be enough solar power, wind power and fusion power anyway. But there is enough Uranium and Thorium for many centuries, even millennia. The most important problem to solve is climate change; besides aging as the most important reason for misery and death today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6HyNk5Duvk

I think people are underestimating the amount of energy production required for sustainability. We use fossil fuels in many other applications besides turning into combustion fuels and if we want to start scrubbing CO2 so we don't turn into Venus that is even more energy. Take fertilizer production for example, we already know it is an energy intensive proccess, a large portion of global energy supply is used on making fertilizer, but it goes farther than that. The base reagents we turn into solid or liquid synthetic fertilizer is more fossil fuels which doesn't get accounted for as energy production, yet it is containing a ton of energy still. We could draw what we need for the fertilizer from the atmosphere and water, but it will increase our energy expenditures for production an entire order of magnitude higher, if not more. Who is counting the carbon pollution from that fertilizer after it comes out of my ass or rots on the ground? The same goes with other processes and materials. Plastics is a big one, nobody counts the amount of 'energy' stored within plastic as a material, plastic doesn't easily degrade, but it does degrade and release its decomposition products into the earth and atmosphere, and at increasing rates if we take the reports of plastic-consuming bacteria evolving and gaining numbers seriously.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#222

Post by magduf »

gok wrote: post #211
magduf wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The opposite is true; removable batteries almost entirely end up in landfills. Right now , that may be the case, but that's because those batteries generally have zero scrap value, so you're just hoping users will care enough about the environment to not do this, and take them to a proper recycling bin (like at the entrance to Target). But the parent was predicting that batteries would become significantly more expe…

CPUs, cases, screens, memory chips, radios, antennae...none of the other parts of phones are standardized or swappable, and unlike batteries they are already expensive. Why would batteries suddenly behave differently when they become expensive?

None of those things retain much value after years of use: they become obsolete, and they can't be recycled.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#223

Post by maxerickson »

magduf wrote: post #122
ajross wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also fundamentally wrong in its headline and lede conclusion. And it even admits as much: > Recycling cannot replenish supplies. Lithium-ion batteries last for 15–20 years, 3 times longer than the 5–7 years for lead-acid batteries. Refiners might exploit poorer quality ores, especially as prices climb. But greater processing costs would push the prices higher. So... no. We aren't going to run out. We'll see a co…

Batteries might get more expensive, but if that happens then we'll see old batteries having scrap value, just like with aluminum today. People will hold onto their old batteries instead of trashing them or recycling them for free, and will re-sell them to recyclers, and recycling rates will go way up. Just look at the recycling rates today for car batteries (lead acid): it's nearly at 100%, though of course part of t…

Lead acid batteries are basically worthless though.

There's a $12 deposit (core charge) you pay if you don't exchange one, which drives recycling, plus stores and landfills tend to accept them for free.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#224

Post by zjaffee »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #105
ryanianian wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your comment to say that cobalt should simply be more expensive to compensate for the negative externalities of obtaining it?

I think he's saying that eventually we will run out of economically viable to extract resources and we should start planning for that now. I'm not quite so sure because there are still tons of people living in awful conditions and they need a lot of this resource extraction to raise their standard of living.

Resource extraction under capitalist, fascist or otherwise non socially minded governments has been shown to hinder growth in regions where high amounts of valuable natural resources are available since elites can leverage the low cost of labor to extract said resources.

Planning on a backup plan and providing large numbers of jobs through factories to increase the value of labor in these places is a much better way to increase the standard of living other without installing socialist governments.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#225

Post by ajross »

justinator wrote: post #218
ajross wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because who cares about lithium recycling? We don't need recycled lithium to maintain battery production. Realistically it's one of those resources like iron or aluminum or phosphorous which we can't meaningfully "run out of". (Though I threw that last one in deliberately: we're pulling P out of rocks and throwing it into the biosphere at an unsustainable rate right now, and are going to have to radically adjust the…

Because then this is pretty much a false statement: > Unlike petroleum, batteries are almost 100% recyclable. Although they can be, they're not. That's a big point in electric cars, that I think gets swept under the rug in the green-washing of electric cars: the main widget that makes electric cars electric cars is discarded as hazardous waste. It's too costly and impractical to recycle them. We essentially want to r…

OK. The linked article was about resource exhaustion, not "hazardous waste". My "100% recyclable" point was that the limiting resources in battery production can be sustainably sourced from old batteries, not that literally every atom was going into a new batter. I mean, one doesn't complain that the plastic housing or IC controllers aren't recyclable.

FWIW, though: Li isn't particularly hazardous.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#226

Post by acd »

To lessen global co2 emissions we should think about which wehicles gets batteries first. Is it a car commuting for example an hour a day or commercial wehicles which are out in the road constantly?

Think of 100kw if battery power in a personal Wehicle versus commercial delivery trucks.

Secondly you do not need to pack 100kw of batteries in a car who rarely commutes long distance. If the batteries are shared between cars then you swap in a 100kw pack for the long term commute but have a 10kw pack for every day use. That way batteries will last a lot longer.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#227

Post by gepi79 »

justinator wrote: post #218
ajross wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because who cares about lithium recycling? We don't need recycled lithium to maintain battery production. Realistically it's one of those resources like iron or aluminum or phosphorous which we can't meaningfully "run out of". (Though I threw that last one in deliberately: we're pulling P out of rocks and throwing it into the biosphere at an unsustainable rate right now, and are going to have to radically adjust the…

Because then this is pretty much a false statement: > Unlike petroleum, batteries are almost 100% recyclable. Although they can be, they're not. That's a big point in electric cars, that I think gets swept under the rug in the green-washing of electric cars: the main widget that makes electric cars electric cars is discarded as hazardous waste. It's too costly and impractical to recycle them. We essentially want to r…

Thanks for the discussion. I assume that those who down vote do not reply.

But I disagree that recycling is a big point regarding solar panels and batteries.

IMO lack of recycling and toxic waste are very lame and ignorant and misleading excuses (by the main stream media) to refuse the solar power industry, the battery industry and the electric car industry.

The threat and harm of climate change is catastrophic and very real and change is very urgent.

The fight against climate change must not be a debate of wrong priorities (waste vs climate change) and short term profitability of companies.

No foolish austerity and no local (and needless) poisoning by solar panels and batteries is worth the harm of climate change.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/0...

https://truthout.org/articles/release-of-arctic-methane-may-...

http://www.climate-change-emergency-medical-response.org/2-d...

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

For more links:

https://lustysociety.org/ethics.html#climate

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#228

Post by semi-extrinsic »

gepi79 wrote: post #183
ChuckMcM wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. But it makes for a catchy title doesn't it? And if you're research lab is working on anodes for batteries you need to pitch urgency to get the big funding, who wants to fund research for problems that are 50 years out? But cynicism aside, the key to making renewables a practical base load replacement for fossil fueled plants is a solid battery infrastructure. And those batteries aren't 'car batteries'…

I agree. Where weight and size do not matter, more choices for batteries are possible. E.g. redox flow batteries. https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/its-big-and-... In the near future, atmospheric CO2 will be recycled to create organic fuel. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/09/18/solar-fuel-system-recyc... https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/instantly-r... Solid state batteries are also intere…

> In the near future, atmospheric CO2 will be recycled to create organic fuel.

If you have unlimited free energy in this near future, then maybe you can do what yoj say (or maybe electrolysis to produce hydrogen is better/more profitable).

Otherwise no, this won't happen.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#229

Post by xyzzyz »

justinator wrote: post #218
ajross wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because who cares about lithium recycling? We don't need recycled lithium to maintain battery production. Realistically it's one of those resources like iron or aluminum or phosphorous which we can't meaningfully "run out of". (Though I threw that last one in deliberately: we're pulling P out of rocks and throwing it into the biosphere at an unsustainable rate right now, and are going to have to radically adjust the…

Because then this is pretty much a false statement: > Unlike petroleum, batteries are almost 100% recyclable. Although they can be, they're not. That's a big point in electric cars, that I think gets swept under the rug in the green-washing of electric cars: the main widget that makes electric cars electric cars is discarded as hazardous waste. It's too costly and impractical to recycle them. We essentially want to r…

the tech. to recycle those future billion batteries doesn't really exist.

You're still missing the whole point, which is why you are being downvoted. The technology to recycle the future billion batteries exists today, and will improve in future. The issue here is that at a current price point it is simply not competitive compared to extracting raw lithium from ground. As the most accessible and profitable fields run out of the material, and as the demand for lithium grows, the price will go up, which might make the battery recycling economically viable.

Compare it to our current wood usage: the wood we use for furniture production is usually recyclable. You could take a wardrobe, disassemble it, and after some recutting and sanding you might use the wood for some other project. However, doing this in the end costs much more than using new materials, because collecting used furniture for recycling purposes, and labor needed to disassemble it and prepare wood for reuse is simply too much for it to be worth it, especially as it cannot be manufactured in a process as automated as making plywood, MDF, 2x4s or hardwood flooring is these days. Same with getting lithium from batteries: we could do it, but you'd have to pay extra for it.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#230

Post by yazr »

mchannon wrote: post #125

In ten years, I predict we'll have started transitioning to aluminum-ion batteries. Lithium has one valence electron. Aluminum has three. Aluminum-ion cells are not new, and they do have issues, but the same can be said of Lithium-ion 20 years ago. Energy densities are remarkably different, with aluminum the clear winner. Ironically, nickel and probably cobalt will be needed for mass-produced aluminum-ion batteries t…

> Ironically,

i see what u did there....

Post reply on HN